Sinaiticus Problematicus - a 19th century relic?

[stevenavery]

Hi,

Sinaiticus has a special place in the development of the modern textual criticism theory. Sinaiticus worked as a complementary document that allowed Westcott and Hort to build their theories, as the support to Vaticanus as the center-piece.

Sinaiticus is also a good example of how modern "textual criticism" can do a questionable type of palaeography. The early dating of the manuscript was pushed aggressively by its "discoverer" Constantine Tischendorf. Objections were rolled over, and by the time of Westcott and Hort it was one of the "rich materials"(Hort, 1853) that were at center stage. One problem, hardly anybody ever actually saw and handled the two sections of the ms. They were working off of the Tischendorf facsimile, which omitted or hid basic information.

The superbly executed Codex Sinaiticus Project of 2009 changed this dynamic. Now anyone can see the anomalies that have been missed. Internet searching and the ease of book buying has helped as well.

A simple example, using the information from Tischendorf and Caspar René Gregory (quoted by Metzger and Aland) we can learn that Tischendorf trimmed the ms., and even got rid of partial, and maybe full, notes. Never to be recoreded, and never seen again. We have had 150 years of "Sinaiticus science", yet this simple deductive conclusion was never mentioned.

Today we can go back over the issues of the Simonides controversies of the early 1860s, with the manuscript itself as evidence.

What we discover is amazing. Here are a couple of examples of what the evidence shows.

1) the manuscript overall is in a far better condition than could match up to the theory of 1100+ years of heavy use at multiple locations, followed by 500+ years of storage. It is flexible, supple, alive rather than brittle. No analogous mss have been referenced. (We can add that the manuscript, which was supposed to have suffered unbindings and mutilation, amazingly managed to not lose even one verse, or word, of the New Testament in all this handling.)

2) the 43 leaves in Leipzig, that left Sinai in 1844, are pristine white parchment as well. Contra the chemical empirical knowledge that manuscripts will yellow with age. Again, there are no analogies for this anomaly.

3) the 347 leaves in England, that left Sinai in 1859, are erratically coloured, in a way that is totally different than Leipzig. This matches to a "T" the accusations made c. 1862-64 that the leaves had been tampered with in the 1850s to give an appearance of age. Lemon-juice being referenced as the principle agent.

Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY

[Mike D]

From the evidence uncovered (or publicised) by the Codex Sinaiticus Project, can we then conclude that the manuscript was/is a fake, or is it not that simple?

[stevenavery]

Basically it is that simple. In terms of representing the colour and condition of the manuscript, the Codex Sinaiticus Project, and the British Library, and a BBC video taken at the Library, and the many papers, have been quite forthright and honest. The question of authenticity, though, is the elephant in the living room (which they likely never considered at the 2009 online presentation time, which made it easier to be honest). Generally, they can only speak of "exceptional" features and, in further discussion, possible explanations for the anomalies (even where the explanations are clearly insufficient). The Leipzig University Library, by contrast, does not want to talk about anything.

Note: There was one spot where games were played. The pricey 2010 Sinaiticus Facsimile edition (which does not list the editors and technical people) that was produced by Hendrickson, in connection with the British Library, smoothed the colour of the pages so there was no distinction between Leipizg and the British Library. The Preface talked of "sensitive adjustments", an ironic term. Thus, there is a circumstantial evidence of embarrassment if the pictures had been done properly, and we can conjectural that the embarrassment could have been a concern that authenticity issues would be raised. Thus, no white parchment there. Granted, the conclusions are conjectural.

British Library facsimile 2010 "sensitive adjustments"
www.purebibleforum.com/showpost.php?p=287&postcount=1

Granted, there is an interface between the manuscript sections and their physical condition, and their connection and corroboration with the historical events of c. 1860, when it was claimed very specifically that it was a young, coloured, tampered, doctored, mangled, ms that was produced c. 1840. This corroboration, a type of super-evidence, makes the physical ms. conclusions exceedingly simple. Here is an example:

why do we know that the 1859 CSP leaves were artificially coloured?
www.purebibleforum.com/showthread.php?t=230

Once you see that the pages that went to St. Petersburg were darkened, this leads to the question:

Who Darkened Codex Sinaiticus? - Which is a good start to the manuscript and historical review.

Steven Avery

[Mike D]

Apr 12, 2016 23:55:32 GMT stevenavery said:

Sinaiticus is also a good example of how modern "textual criticism" can do a questionable type of palaeography. The early dating of the manuscript was pushed aggressively by its "discoverer" Constantine Tischendorf. Objections were rolled over, and by the time of Westcott and Hort it was one of the "rich materials"(Hort, 1853) that were at center stage.

Were there many objections at the time that we know of? Did the manuscript seems to fit in any way (e.g. textually, graphologically, materially)?

[stevenavery]

There were two very different types of objections. First, though, remember that very few had access to the ms. as I mentioned above: "hardly anybody ever actually saw and handled the two sections of the ms. They were working off of the Tischendorf facsimile, which omitted or hid basic information."

Among the people working with Tischendorf's facsimile, major objections in the 1860s to 1870s were by Porfiry Uspensky (who had handled the ms. at Sinai), Adolf Hilgenfeld and James Donaldson. (We do not have all the back and forth easily available, those three are major names.) Uspensky and Hilgenfeld generally said .. "not really 3rd or 4th century, more likely 5th or 6th". Even David Trobisch today is reported to have a 6th or 7th century preference. James Donaldson said that the linguistic issues with Hermas and Barnabas made those sections as coming back to Greek from later Latin medieval sources. He did not fix an exact terminus post quem, but the sense was that 600 AD would still be a difficult early. Maybe much later, like 800 or 1,000. His main point was simple, it was not 4th century. What was especially ironic was that Donaldson used the Tischendorf arguments against the 1856 Simonides Hermas against Sinaiticus. (Tischendorf had sort of retracted his objections when he needed to publish Sinaiticus). And we find the end of Hermas was thrown away in the dump zone we now call the "new finds", with leaves discovered in 1975.

The other objection was much more basic. Constantine Simonides, a wily Greek who was a skilled calligraphist with a reputation for forgery, said very clearly that he had helped produce the manuscript c. 1840 at Mt. Athos. No real provenance for Sinaiticus being in Sinai could be found, no catalogue entries, no reports from travelers, and Simonides knew that none could show up. Simonides was in the right place at the right time (the Mt. Athos catalog published in 1895 was a major confirmation), with the right skill set, and the connections with Athos and Constantinople and Sinai, to fit all this like a "T". Beyond all that, he had even published Hermas and Barnabas in earlier years before Sinaiticus pioneered the Greek text of those works. Beyond all that, he even had a number of "called shots" about the manuscript, such as describing the Tischendorf theft of 1844 and describing the colouring of the manuscript to give it an "appearance of age" in the 1850s. As a fortuitous ultra-confirmation, the mansucript actually was split up into a "white parchment" part and a tampered-coloured part. This was all hidden and ignored until the Codex Sinaiticus Project digitally united the ms sections in 2009. (Even then it took a couple of years for the coffee to be smelled.)

As for the manuscript "fitting" either the antiquity idea (4th-6th century) or the recent production (19th century) that is a big question. Circularities can come to play. I'll see if I can handle it a bit later.

Steven Avery

[stevenavery]

The new discovery!

homoeoteleuton textbook case- Sinaiticus (350 AD?) copied from Claromontanus (550 AD)
Time machine? Or are our history and dates needing correction.

You can actually how this omission, followed by the correction, occurred with the Claromontanus and Sinaiticus ms. pics here:

Homeoteleuton - Text Omitted Because Of Similar Endings
www.sinaiticus.net/homeoteleuton.html

And then there are links to 3 papers with more info, that can be read online, or downloaded. (The second one formats better in the download.)

Your analysis, thoughts and feedback appreciated.

Steven

[maestroh33]

Apr 20, 2016 7:19:53 GMT Mike D said:

From the evidence uncovered (or publicised) by the Codex Sinaiticus Project, can we then conclude that the manuscript was/is a fake, or is it not that simple?

What you can conclude is that people who can actually READ the document (Avery cannot, he's never taken Greek at ANY level) and know paleography date it to the fourth century. KJV Onlyist conspiracy theorists date it to the 19th. 

[maestroh33]

Apr 20, 2016 15:04:24 GMT Mike D said:

Apr 12, 2016 23:55:32 GMT stevenavery said:

Sinaiticus is also a good example of how modern "textual criticism" can do a questionable type of palaeography. The early dating of the manuscript was pushed aggressively by its "discoverer" Constantine Tischendorf. Objections were rolled over, and by the time of Westcott and Hort it was one of the "rich materials"(Hort, 1853) that were at center stage.

Were there many objections at the time that we know of? Did the manuscript seems to fit in any way (e.g. textually, graphologically, materially)?

No. A lying forger named Constantine Simonides claimed he completed it all by himself in world record time. He was exposed as a fraud, and the date has been undisputed by any knowledgeable person since Skeat in the 1930s. 

[maestroh33]

There were two very different types of objections. First, though, remember that very few had access to the ms. as I mentioned above: "hardly anybody ever actually saw and handled the two sections of the ms. They were working off of the Tischendorf facsimile, which omitted or hid basic information."


This statement is basically an attempt to accuse Tischendorf of deceiving people. No basic information was 'hid' or 'omitted,' this is all part of Avery's elaborate conspiracy theory. 


Among the people working with Tischendorf's facsimile, major objections in the 1860s to 1870s were by Porfiry Uspensky (who had handled the ms. at Sinai), Adolf Hilgenfeld and James Donaldson.

None of whom actually saw the manuscript and NONE of whom date it to the 19th century - making this appeal irrelevant.


His main point was simple, it was not 4th century. 


And he was wrong but oh well.


The other objection was much more basic. Constantine Simonides, a wily Greek who was a skilled calligraphist with a reputation for forgery, said very clearly that he had helped produce the manuscript c. 1840 at Mt. Athos.

For those of you unaware of the actual story - and make no mistake, Avery makes great hay in the fact that so few people know the details of this nonsense - Avery is himself now misleading you. Simonides did NOT say he helped produce the manuscript. The CLAIM was HIS DID IT ALL BY HIMSELF!!!

His so-called witness Kallinikos - in reality, Simionides writing another phony letter - stated this in a letter that appeared in "The Literary Churchman" on 16 December 1862 - "...the manuscript in dispute is the work of the unwearied Simonides, and of no other person."


Avery is misleading you by not telling you that part. 

No real provenance for Sinaiticus being in Sinai could be found, no catalogue entries, no reports from travelers, and Simonides knew that none could show up.

Avery is now complaining because there's no record of the manuscript that predates the monastery by two centuries being produced IN the monastery. Absurd on its face.

Simonides was in the right place at the right time (the Mt. Athos catalog published in 1895 was a major confirmation), with the right skill set, and the connections with Athos and Constantinople and Sinai, to fit all this like a "T".

This is just wishful thinking fallacy run amuck and nothing more. Even Avery rejects Simonides as the sole author, meaning he's cherry picking the parts of Simonides' claim. All this so-called confirmation proves is that Simonides was at Athos, and nobody rejects that so it's irrelevant as evidence anyway. 

Beyond all that, he had even published Hermas and Barnabas in earlier years before Sinaiticus pioneered the Greek text of those works.

Another example of "let me overstate my case."


Beyond all that, he even had a number of "called shots" about the manuscript,

This isn't a 'called shot,' and I don't know if Avery is just engaging in hyperbole or if he actually doesn't even know what a called shot is. A called shot is when BEFORE you swing for the fences, you predict it. There are no called shots here, just nonsense of Simonides trying to fill in the gaps of his lack of knowledge.

such as describing the Tischendorf theft of 1844

This isn't a called shot, it's a libelous statement.

and describing the colouring of the manuscript to give it an "appearance of age" in the 1850s.

Also a libelous accusation.....incidentally, your verbiage here is admitting that even you know that Simonides and Kallinikos' letter are one and the same. 

As a fortuitous ultra-confirmation, the mansucript actually was split up into a "white parchment" part and a tampered-coloured part.

Just a claim folks.

This was all hidden and ignored until the Codex Sinaiticus Project digitally united the ms sections in 2009. (Even then it took a couple of years for the coffee to be smelled.)


Sure, nobody noticed this. Uh, there's no problem here and this is an individual who has seen nothing but portions of what he has been told are the manuscript online spouting an ill-informed opinion. 


As for the manuscript "fitting" either the antiquity idea (4th-6th century) or the recent production (19th century) that is a big question.

Actually, it isn't a question AT ALL. On the one side is everybody knowledgeable and on the other side are the conspiracy theorists. 

Circularities can come to play. I'll see if I can handle it a bit later.


While you're at it, I hope you can answer Dr Wasserman's question. Since a portion of Sinaiticus has turned up binded elsewhere - in a manuscript predating the Simonides claims and this has been known since 2010 - give us a LOGICAL explanation. We can hardly wait.

See, folks, Dr Wasserman unlike Avery is an ACTUAL scholar of Simonides and Sinaiticus. Unlike Avery, who cannot even read these documents himself, Wasserman works with primary materials and, in fact, will be speaking at the SBL in Boston later this year. Just this past weekend he fired this question at the unlearned Avery that needs to be digested by everyone who is concerned for the truth:

====
I hope it is clear enough to you by now that the *one* example of a homeoteleuton (Heb 1:8) in Sinaiticus that I cited makes it apparent that the exemplar of Sinaiticus had a different word order there than what is found in Claromontanus. I will not spend more time on that issue, you can check all the rest of the places if you want (see previous message). The whole idea that Sinaiticus is a copy of Claromontanus, which has a very different text in general, not only in these few places where scribal leaps occur, will make it apparent how absurd the claim is.



As for the equally crazy idea that Simonides copied Sinaiticus, I don’t know where to start… but let me just also mention that another fragment of Sinaiticus has rather recently been found in the binding of Sinai Greek 2289. The binding of the book is dated to the early 18th century. You can read about it in detail in Nikolas Sarris’ thesis Classification of finishing tools in Greek bookbinding: establishing links from the Library of St Catherine's Monastery, Sinai, Egypt. PhD thesis, University of the Arts London, 2010, in section 3.6 (group 57), pp. 202-233 (esp. 224-26; and image on p. 215). The thesis is made avaialble here (the pertinent section is found in vol. 2): ualresearchonline.arts.ac.uk/6143/



Perhaps Simonides, who lived a century later, also managed to forge Sinai Greek 2289 and incorporate a page from Sinaiticus inside the binding and hide it to make this mystery even greater. . . .We will see what clever explanation is offered.

=====

There is no justification nor evidence supporting Avery's position. These are the musings of an individual with an active imagination but zero skills in Greek, textual criticism, and paleography. And before he whines wanting this post removed and claims I've attacked him - pointing out he DOES NOT have the relevant skills to make this assessment is a statement of FACT, not an ATTACK. It proves he is committing the fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam. But the truth is he does not possess such skills. 

[James Hannam]

Thank you for the counterpoint.

I do think that if there is good evidence that Sinaiticus is a fake, we'd see this in rather more outlets than a website and this forum (although I do like the idea that this forum could break the biggest story in palaeography this century).

I'd also mention that fakes tend to become more obvious with time because they are invariably embedded in the milieu that created them. Witness the way that scholars trained in the 60s all fell for the Secret Gospel of Mark, whereas it is a pretty obvious forgery now. So if Sinaiticus was a fake, it should now be completely obvious. That it doesn't is strong evidence of authenticity.

One thing that does interest me: what do KJV onlyists have against Sinaiticus exactly, except that it preserves earlier readings than the KJV. Is the point that the KJV must be correct even though based on later MS and so anything earlier that contradicts it is problematic? Given the number of early MS now available, including the DSS, I suspect that there will be further work to do even after Sinaiticus is consigned to the scrap heap.

Best wishes

James

[ignorantianescia]

Apr 9, 2017 17:20:53 GMT James Hannam said:

One thing that does interest me: what do KJV onlyists have against Sinaiticus exactly, except that it preserves earlier readings than the KJV. Is the point that the KJV must be correct even though based on later MS and so anything earlier that contradicts it is problematic? Given the number of early MS now available, including the DSS, I suspect that there will be further work to do even after Sinaiticus is consigned to the scrap heap.

It's about the textual criticism of the NT. Sinaiticus is one of the oldest uncial codices of the Alexandrian text-type, while the KJV was based on the Textus Receptus that derives from the Byzantine text-type or the Majority Text. That's a bit of an issue if the KJV is infallible. But, as you're correct to say that KJV Onlyism still has a lot of hurdles to clear even if it could be demonstrated that Sinaiticus is forged, Codex Sinaiticus isn't the most important uncial for large parts of the New Testament - for certain portions Codex Vaticanus (also Alexandrian) is of greater importance.

Whether it is of any consolation to English speakers or not, similar fringe beliefs also exist among adherents to certain early modern Bible translations in other languages.

[wraggy]

I am familiar with a Pentecostal sect that is big on the KJV only thing.

This mob believe that speaking in tongues is "the evidence" of receiving the Holy Spirit. Also, if you do not speak in tongues then you are doomed to a flaming hereafter.

This is their pet text from Mark 16. Because modern bibles place this text in italics with notes suggesting that it does not appear in the earliest MSS, any bible other than the KJV must be suspect.

"14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. 15And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. 17And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover".

While this sect, The Revival Centers in Australia, are keen on speaking in tongues as evidence of true belief, for some strange reason they are a bit shy on the picking up of snakes stuff.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRC_Churches_International

[ignorantianescia]

Yes, that's a common belief among certain Pentecostals and Evangelicals. To be fair to them, picking up snakes is unusually dangerous in Australia. I reckon it's safer to pick up a snake in Europe (especially Ireland) than to pick up an earthworm in Australia. There are snake handling Holiness sects in the United States though. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake_handling

[stevenavery]

Apr 9, 2017 17:20:53 GMT James Hannam said:

Thank you for the counterpoint. I do think that if there is good evidence that Sinaiticus is a fake, we'd see this in rather more outlets than a website and this forum (although I do like the idea that this forum could break the biggest story in palaeography this century).

The issue of the non-authenticity of Sinaiticus started to become crystal clear only after the 2009 Codex Sinaiticus Project placed the leaves online, in one united spot, and we learned of the colour anomalies that confirm the colouring in the 1850s of the ms. We even have a BEFORE and AFTER picture of the white parchment from 1844 in Leipzig and the unevenly coloured (stained) parts in St. Petersburg in 1859.

This is now combined with many, many other corroborations, historical "coincidences", physical condition of the manuscript and the recently discovered homoeoteleutons where they come from a sense-line manuscript, and many match superbly with Claromontanus.

As to why evidences so clear are handwaved, there is an ossification in "deeply entrenched scholarship" that works as a barrier.

Apr 9, 2017 17:20:53 GMT James Hannam said:

I'd also mention that fakes tend to become more obvious with time because they are invariably embedded in the milieu that created them.

See above. They can actually become harder to discern, because so much circular study comes to play. e.g. Sinaiticus is given as the new example of how ink or parchment can be wonderfully preserved even after 1500 years of supposed heavy use. Thus, the deeply entrenched non-authentic manuscript actually changes the sciences.

Apr 9, 2017 17:20:53 GMT James Hannam said:

Witness the way that scholars trained in the 60s all fell for the Secret Gospel of Mark, whereas it is a pretty obvious forgery now. So if Sinaiticus was a fake, it should now be completely obvious. That it doesn't is strong evidence of authenticity.

This is circular to the "deeply entrenched scholarship" (a phrase given me by a scholar who works in the forgery realms.)

Apr 9, 2017 17:20:53 GMT James Hannam said:

One thing that does interest me: what do KJV onlyists have against Sinaiticus exactly, except that it preserves earlier readings than the KJV. Is the point that the KJV must be correct even though based on later MS and so anything earlier that contradicts it is problematic? Given the number of early MS now available, including the DSS, I suspect that there will be further work to do even after Sinaiticus is consigned to the scrap heap.

We really could care less about Sinaiticus, since it was shown long ago to be abjectly corrupt by John William Burgon. We are interested in the foundational integrity, or lack thereof, of what are called the textual criticism science.

If there is anything in the harumphs from Bill Brown (generally rabbit-trails, confused claims and disinformation) that looks like a significant counterpoint, please share the specific spot that you found interesting. Thanks!

Steven Avery

[stevenavery]

When you are dealing with childish reactive posting, it is generally designed to make a phantom point, with hubris, then run, then acknowledge nothing. Let's take one as an example.

Apr 4, 2017 23:23:24 GMT Bill Brown said:

No real provenance for Sinaiticus being in Sinai could be found, no catalogue entries, no reports from travelers, and Simonides knew that none could show up.

Avery is now complaining because there's no record of the manuscript that predates the monastery by two centuries being produced IN the monastery. Absurd on its face.

There is no "complaining" involved. This is simple research and study, logic and sense.
Plus what is the absurdity of "predates the monastery by two centuries"? Any record at any time before 1840 at the St. Catherine's Monastery would be a powerful evidence.

When you deal with what are purported to be ancient items, provenance is a key element.
How do you know that it really comes from point A, and has been there a long time?
What if it was strategically placed more recently?

And how could Simonides even consider making the claim of being involved in the production of Sinaiticus (supposedly a petty pique in irritation against Tischendorf) if a simple catalogue entry or traveler report was likely to prove him wrong? These would be third-party, independent evidences, which are a different type of evidence than words internal to the manuscript. (Such as the Pamphilius colophons, claiming antiquity, which could simply have been placed using the Coislinianus exemplar.)

Lets take the catalogue issue. In point of fact, when the Simonides claims became public, Simonides was rebutted specifically by a reference to the supposed fact that Sinaiticus could be found in the ancient catalogues. This was potentially a strong argument, except that it was bogus then and is still bogus now, in 2017, with all the research at St. Catherine's. There has never been a trace of Sinaticus found in any monastery library catalogue before the later 1800s.

Here are extracts showing how central this claim was in the contentious 1860s claims and counter-claims.

One detail that was given about the finding of Codex Friderico-Augustanus was that it was found in a rubbish basket. A letter published in The Guardian on 27th May 1863 from the Revd. J. Silvester Davies, one-time chaplain to the British Consul in Alexandria (and whose name is to re-appear in our investigations) quotes a monk of Sinai who in contradiction to what Hodgkin had written stated that according to the librarian of the monastery the whole of Codex Sinaiticus had been in the library for many years and was marked in the ancient — catalogues. While this letter was written with the intention of supporting Tischendorf's claim that Sinaiticus (and by extension Friderico-Augustanus which was an original part of the same manuscript as that labelled Sinaiticus) is ancient, it did cause scholars to question Tischendorf s statement about the condition in which he found the manuscript. Is it likely, they wondered, that a manuscript known in the library catalogue would have been jettisoned in the rubbish basket?

James Keith Elliott
Codex Sinaiticus and the Simonides Affair, 1982 p. 16

Since, then, Mr. Simonides never visited Mount Sinai, but having only just come to Alexandria immediately went thence to England; he lies when he positively affirms that the ancient MS. of the Holy Scripture published by Mr. Tischendorf is his work; because the MS. in question (as the librarian of our holy monastery, having been so from the year 1841 to 1858, assured me) belonged to the library of the monastery, and was marked in its ancient catalogues. The book, then, which the librarian who was appointed in 1841 found in this library, how could it possibly be the work of Simonides...."

Journal of Sacred Literature
books.google.com/books?id=_bYRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA493
Elliott p. 105, letter from Kallinikos, Hieromonachos of Sinai, published in The Guardian, May 1863

I emphatically deny that the Codex Sinaiticus was inscribed in the Ancicnt Catalogue,for the good reason that no ancient catalogue exists: there was none there whatever, till I made a catalogue, during my first visit, for the Patriarch of Constantinople. Constantius. who before was Archbishop of Mount Sinai.

Journal of sacred literature, July 1863
books.google.com/books?id=kR82AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA495
Elliott, p. 108
Simonides, letter to three publications, June 1863, see also discussion on p. 112

More info at:

Pure Bible Forum
ancient catalog at St. Catherine's Monastery?
www.purebibleforum.com/showthread.php?t=103

Now, a person defending authenticity could say ..
"oops, this looks like an honest error, perhaps there was no catalogue" or "perhaps the manuscript was in a special place, and did not make it into catalogues".

Fair enough, albeit a bit weak.
However, only a person devoid of the ability to discuss logically and properly (in this case, Bill Brown) would call the point "absurd".

Notice how Bill Brown is the master of the throwaway junk point. He writes something silly in one minute, aggressively and with insults, and it will take maybe an hour to properly scholastically show the truth of the matter. In this case, I did not mind, because putting these quotes together is a fine study on its own account. Simply remember his technique when you see the reactive posting. Thanks!

This is also why I request readers to tell me if there is a point, among the counterpoints, that you really consider salient. Then we can go into it, iron sharpeneth.

Steven Avery